Talent versus Likeability

There is so much debate about Federer versus Djokovic as the G.O.A.T in Tennis. And each time it boils down to these two factors: TALENT VERSUS LIKEABILITY.

It really makes me very curious...

Come to think of it, this debate is applicable to all professions. Those who have "pure invincible talent", and those who have "talent and likeability" are often viewed very differently by the world.

Novak Djokovic always finds himself mired in negative news and is hardly given the benefit of doubt when he falters. Neither by the crowd, nor the media. He is not seen as a human by many, but a machine. Emotionless and even boring perhaps. Of course, his immense talent is to blame for it. The man is simply a robot on the court. He is in complete control of his body and mind. And that's what makes him nearly impossible to beat perhaps. But is he at fault for being so clinical? Is he supposed to change his winning formula for our entertainment?

So, why do we expect ultra talented people to also be likeable? Why do we not allow them to be themselves and inspire us with pure grit and results?

This human psychology is surely something to ponder on. I think it's because we want to know the individual from the professional. And then form our opinions of them in their area of expertise by working backwards.

There's a reason why Federer's picture is the click bait for this article and not Djoko's.

Why do we do that? Is that fair to the supremely talented?

Most outliers are seen as difficult people by the crowd. Be it Steve Jobs, or Michael Jackson or Stephan Hawking. It is only in hindsight that we truly appreciate them for what they leave behind, for the world to cherish and learn from.

Statistics clearly favour Djokovic as the all time great of the sport. But Federer and Nadal have many more fans, they are more marketable and are given many more second chances by the crowd and the media. Put them to a popular vote and you know who will lose for sure. We all have seen how the crowd boos Djoko in the biggest of tournaments. Yet the man wins everything! So, who is to be celebrated more I wonder?

It is a million dollar question... one that digs deep into our appreciation of hard work and consistent results, or the lack of it.

Recently, Naomi Osaka pulled out of the French Open because she was not granted the request to avoid post match press conferences. The World No.1 was not comfortable taking questions from the press as she was going through mental health issues and requested to be excused, but was denied.

This stand by the organizers also denied millions of fans a chance to watch her do what she does best- PLAY. Isn't this why we pay for tickets? For a good match? Or is it to only listen to her interviews and watch her fashion?

I am seeing this trend across professions, where we expect our idols to be more than their craft. We expect doctors to be PR friendly. We expect singers to dance better. We expect actors to be like models. And we expect politicians to be entertainers. Why?

In order to be the best in the world, one has to sacrifice a lot. Their families sacrifice a lot. Each person has their own personality and as professionals they must be gauged for their achievements in the arena. But that rarely happens. We don't compartmentalize.

What happens is:

What likeability does is, it allows you to even make a career out of mediocrity. There are many professionals who make it big simply because they are easy to be with or talk to. Popularity gets you places talent cannot.

And those who are outliers will never be everyone's cup of tea.

Exactly how it should be.

www.barefootconsultancy.in

#marketing #djokovic #federer #tennis